meandihagee
Well-known
Hello,
On the lookout for a rangefinderesque digital. However, as I look on Flickr I don't like digital images at all. They have this plasticky, glowy feel, that looks really bad compared to film, especially on the human white skin. But maybe it's just the screen. On a nice paper, the digital might catch-up.
Anyway, to my eyes the M8 is the only one who gives a film-like, beautiful texture (is it the camera..., is it the lens...?).
I like the idea of the X100 and X-Pro 1, but both of them produce those ugly digital files I was saying about.
So, my question is this: is it worth buying an M8 in 2012? I don't have a problem with loud shutter, filters, but I would like to go above 640 ISO on a camera that costs the same as the X-Pro 1...
Also, can I get big expo prints with the M8?
On the lookout for a rangefinderesque digital. However, as I look on Flickr I don't like digital images at all. They have this plasticky, glowy feel, that looks really bad compared to film, especially on the human white skin. But maybe it's just the screen. On a nice paper, the digital might catch-up.
Anyway, to my eyes the M8 is the only one who gives a film-like, beautiful texture (is it the camera..., is it the lens...?).
I like the idea of the X100 and X-Pro 1, but both of them produce those ugly digital files I was saying about.
So, my question is this: is it worth buying an M8 in 2012? I don't have a problem with loud shutter, filters, but I would like to go above 640 ISO on a camera that costs the same as the X-Pro 1...
Also, can I get big expo prints with the M8?